At what population density does right maximize its vote?

[mileslunn]

While its true right does well in rural areas everywhere, it seems areas between 5 to 20 people per square mile is where right maxes out such as Plains in US, rural Mountain West, and Prairies in Canada.  In Europe, Eastern US, and Southern Ontario, right dominates rural areas but not by same massive blowouts as areas mentioned before.  Likewise in really low density areas such as Northern Canada and Northern parts of Nordic countries, left tends to win.  Alaska is more right wing but even there the Western and northern parts which are most sparsely populated tend to be more Democrat than state as whole.  Outback of Australia despite being remote I believe is usually blowouts like Prairies and Plains.

While imperfect, I have suggested 10 people per square mile is population density where right strongest.  Big reason British Tories even in rural areas don't get kind of blowouts you see GOP getting in Plains or Tories in Canada in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan.  As in UK, no place is that sparsely populated.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This is one of the most meaningless questions I have ever seen on this forum.

[Stranger in a strange land]

While its true right does well in rural areas everywhere, it seems areas between 5 to 20 people per square mile is where right maxes out such as Plains in US, rural Mountain West, and Prairies in Canada.  In Europe, Eastern US, and Southern Ontario, right dominates rural areas but not by same massive blowouts as areas mentioned before.  Likewise in really low density areas such as Northern Canada and Northern parts of Nordic countries, left tends to win.  Alaska is more right wing but even there the Western and northern parts which are most sparsely populated tend to be more Democrat than state as whole.  Outback of Australia despite being remote I believe is usually blowouts like Prairies and Plains.

While imperfect, I have suggested 10 people per square mile is population density where right strongest.  Big reason British Tories even in rural areas don't get kind of blowouts you see GOP getting in Plains or Tories in Canada in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan.  As in UK, no place is that sparsely populated.

There isn't one. The reason why a given area has the population density it does matters much more than the actual population density, if that makes sense.

[mileslunn]

While its true right does well in rural areas everywhere, it seems areas between 5 to 20 people per square mile is where right maxes out such as Plains in US, rural Mountain West, and Prairies in Canada.  In Europe, Eastern US, and Southern Ontario, right dominates rural areas but not by same massive blowouts as areas mentioned before.  Likewise in really low density areas such as Northern Canada and Northern parts of Nordic countries, left tends to win.  Alaska is more right wing but even there the Western and northern parts which are most sparsely populated tend to be more Democrat than state as whole.  Outback of Australia despite being remote I believe is usually blowouts like Prairies and Plains.

While imperfect, I have suggested 10 people per square mile is population density where right strongest.  Big reason British Tories even in rural areas don't get kind of blowouts you see GOP getting in Plains or Tories in Canada in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan.  As in UK, no place is that sparsely populated.

There isn't one. The reason why a given area has the population density it does matters much more than the actual population density, if that makes sense.

At national, state, or regional level agreed.  But at county or municipal level I believe there is a correlation.  In Canada and UK, if you graph Tory vote vs. population density of constituency there is a correlation.  UK less dense more Tory and only thing that weakens correlation is Tories much weaker in Scotland where least densely populated constituencies located, but in England quite strong.  In Canada has an upside down U shape as rises as gets less dense and then drops off for the remote northern.

US has one if you look at county level with Trump doing best is least densely populated counties and Biden best in most densely.  For state you are right no correlation and somewhat for congressional district, but strong for county.

[Skill and Chance]

For maximizing the right's overall political power, they would want denser "rural" areas than this even if the % margin is lower.  Think 50,000 $400Kish single family homes a 1-2 hour drive from the city center.  Winning Cowskull Dunes County near unanimously can't compete with Phoenix or Denver or even Santa Fe.  Winning ~75% of the vote in The Woodlands or The Villages can compete with downtown Houston or Orlando. 

For the left, it's a bit different.  They do very well with 1 or 2 giant cities anchoring the state (CA, OR, WA, IL, most of the Northeast, and increasingly GA), but really struggle with multiple medium size cities (Carolinas, FL, OH, LA, etc.).  This could also explain why CO is going left harder than VA- easier for Denver to run the show. 

[ProgressiveModerate]

For maximizing the right's overall political power, they would want denser "rural" areas than this even if the % margin is lower.  Think 50,000 $400Kish single family homes a 1-2 hour drive from the city center.  Winning Cowskull Dunes County near unanimously can't compete with Phoenix or Denver or even Santa Fe.  Winning ~75% of the vote in The Woodlands or The Villages can compete with downtown Houston or Orlando. 

For the left, it's a bit different.  They do very well with 1 or 2 giant cities anchoring the state (CA, OR, WA, IL, most of the Northeast, and increasingly GA), but really struggle with multiple medium size cities (Carolinas, FL, OH, LA, etc.).  This could also explain why CO is going left harder than VA- easier for Denver to run the show. 

For the medium sized cities, Dems tend to do fine in the immediate city and suburbs, but these cities tend to have disproportionate exurbs that outvote at least in part the main urban core. Cincinatti and Charlotte are both good examples of this.

However, I think a large part of the reasons why Dems do so well in metros like Seattle and Denver is because geography makes it harder for true exurbs to exist. And I think in Chicago, Chicagoland is already so geographically big there's not as much of a benefit to living in a Chicagoland exurb if it's still a 3 hour drive to the city center, hence why Chicagoland doesn't have very robust exurbs.,

[Kevinstat]

While its true right does well in rural areas everywhere, it seems areas between 5 to 20 people per square mile is where right maxes out such as Plains in US, rural Mountain West, and Prairies in Canada.  In Europe, Eastern US, and Southern Ontario, right dominates rural areas but not by same massive blowouts as areas mentioned before.  Likewise in really low density areas such as Northern Canada and Northern parts of Nordic countries, left tends to win.  Alaska is more right wing but even there the Western and northern parts which are most sparsely populated tend to be more Democrat than state as whole.  Outback of Australia despite being remote I believe is usually blowouts like Prairies and Plains.

While imperfect, I have suggested 10 people per square mile is population density where right strongest.  Big reason British Tories even in rural areas don't get kind of blowouts you see GOP getting in Plains or Tories in Canada in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan.  As in UK, no place is that sparsely populated.

There isn't one. The reason why a given area has the population density it does matters much more than the actual population density, if that makes sense.

Like the northern, very sparsely populated parts of some of the Prairie Provinces in Canada being largely First Nations and thus more likely to vote Liberal or NDP as opposed to the Conservatives federally and whatever the main right-of-center party is provincially.